The way I see it, Hunter has exactly zero chance of winning if he goes the traditional campaign route -- that deck is completely stacked in favor of folks who have won a statewide office (Senator or Governor), because the "large segment of the party, organizations and funds" will eventually go to the best candidate who has shown an ability to win on that scale. Putting all of that energy and money into a candidate who has never even run for a statewide office, let alone won one, is too large of a risk when there are several other candidates out there who have shown the ability to win on that scale.
The comparisons to Clinton do not fly -- Clinton not only was elected Governor of Arkansas multiple times, he was also previously elected as the state's Attorney General once, albeit unopposed.
None of this is intended as a knock on Hunter himself; I am criticizing his campaign method, not the man himself. If he continues to try to run a traditional campaign, he has already relegated himself to failure. If he is indeed serious about wanting to win, he needs to take risks and do some original and unconventional things. Unless/until he does, however, the best he is doing (in my mind) is auditioning for VP or a cabinet position.
“.. Clinton not only was elected Governor of Arkansas multiple times, he was also previously elected as the state’s Attorney General once, albeit unopposed.”
And despite being gov. Clinton only had 2% in October of ‘91, but he didn’t give up.
I don’t want the good guys to give up, either.
Hunter/Thompson 2008!